In re McIlvaine

15 Abb. Pr. 91
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 Abb. Pr. 91 (In re McIlvaine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re McIlvaine, 15 Abb. Pr. 91 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1862).

Opinion

Leonard, J.

All the facts were before the court when the order was made. The application was opposed, and called out every fact and objection that could be made. Hnder these cir[97]*97cumstances a reference was unnecessary to enable the court to ascertain what was proper to be done in the premises.

The statute conferring discretion upon the court in a proper ■ case to direct a disposition of the real estate of an infant for his support, maintenance, and education, is very broad. It is whenever it shall satisfactorily appear that such disposition is necessary and proper. (3 Rev. Stat., 275, § 105, 5 ed.; 2 Ib., 195, §175.)

The previous section authorizes the court to proceed in a summary manner, by reference, to inquire into the merits of the application. The reference is not necessary to give the court jurisdiction. That was acquired by the presentation of the petition showing a case existing wherein an order of reference or other proceeding under the statute might be taken. (Sedgwick on Stat. and Const. L., 370.)

The provision for a reference is not mandatory. It is not “of the essence of the proceeding.” The court may proceed summarily without a reference, if the facts are made to appear so as to show a clear case, where the disposition of the estate of the infant is necessary and proper for any of the purposes indicated by the statute. Such I conceive to be the case here presented.

I advise the affirmance of the order.

Ingraham, P. J., and Peckham, J., concurred. ;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Three Four Building Corp. v. Siegel
269 A.D. 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1945)
Aldrich v. Funk
1 N.Y.S. 541 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 Abb. Pr. 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mcilvaine-nysupct-1862.